Re: relations aren't types?

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:Pd6Ib.692647$Tr4.1730745_at_attbi_s03...
> "Lauri Pietarinen" <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:bsqf7f$303$1_at_nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> >> > My understanding is that in the scope of relational databases,> > atomicity is defined in terms of whether the relational operators can> > "see" the value> > or not without the help of "non-relational", or scalar operators.>> Interesting. I wonder if that's definition Bob is using, thus causing> our disconnect about atomicity. Where did you get this definition,> may I ask?

I don't make any distinction whether the operations are "non-relational". If
all the dbms knows about the contents of attributes is a set of operations
that apply to them as values in toto, then the values are atomic.